Gun manufacturers refuse to sell to anti-gun Dick's Sporting Goods

katzgar said:
there are dozens and dozens of guns listed at Dicks website. The OPer is just being his usual moronic self.
Click to expand...
It's true that Mossberg issued a political statement. It's also true that Dicks, and the other supposed sporting goods stores, are selling a lot more clothing/sneakers than they do hunting/fishing equipment.

We have a Dicks near us. 25 years ago, I bought downriggers and other upper level fishing equipment there. They also had an extensive saltwater fishing dept....100 miles from the nearest access to saltwater.

They did away with that about 20 years ago. Their sporting goods department is a disgrace compared to the way it used to be. Maybe online is different.

edit...this is the first page you get on the Dicks website
https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/
 
archives said:
Amazed that some many conservatives don't understand the Second Amendment

Even given that it allows one to own a weapon, it doesn't mean that that "right" is absolute, no Constitutional right is absolute, they can, and are, regulated and in many cases even restricted. The same thing apply to guns, they can Constitutionally be regulated and in some cases restricted, even Scalia noted such in his majority report in the Heller case

Echoing the Second Amendment in gun debates doesn't aid your argument
Click to expand...

The Court doesn't seem to understand "shall not be infringed". It's the only amendment with such absolute terminology. The 1st was written to only apply to Congress. The 2nd was written to apply to all levels of government, and to be absolute.
 
Jade Dragon said:
Apparently you don't understand anything I'm saying. My standards end outside those discussions. They're there to provide simple discussion with those that can leave the butting heads for outside. Anyone that partakes can post in friendly terms there, and go right outside, and bash heads with idiots, and racists. It's called a reprieve. It's not a reprieve if people bring the outside drama inside. Those discussions have standards, and the rules don't leave there, as I only control my own discussions. In the occasional political discussion, I ban the Toxic ones from making it about them, I ban the stormfront racists, and I ban anyone with a personal vendetta against me. Lately I made a discussion about nicest poster, and people are already ruining it without the thread bans.

P.S. I never said in any thread, and I was at your discussions because you were talking trash, and had been stalking me. If you thought I should take that lying down, you must think I'm a very nice person.
Click to expand...

Why do you thread ban people in the CE and warzone forums then?

Also, You create flame threads then bam the person you flaming. How does that mesh with your claim it is only for you Jade discussions?
 
guno said:
For real assaults not some fantasies of black men coming to get them, that's how the NRA whips up their fears
Click to expand...

The usual ignorant nonsense.

As for the video, blacks are about 1/8 the population, but, according to FBI statistics, commit almost half the murders. And about 90% of black murders are committed by other blacks (posting that statistic got my Twitter account blocked). Blacks have a social problem that's not due to whites. Whites have social problems too, in particular, high levels of domestic violence and the occasional mass shooter.
 
Last edited:
Jade Dragon said:
That's for civilian arms, but in all seriousness assault weapons are outside that realm. Do you think every citizen was aloud the heavy arms of the day, back in the amendments era? Did everyone have access to ship to ship cannons? When the danger of the arms outweighs any idea of some kind of oppressive government, something needs to change.
Why don't some of those countries with gun control, have the government beating down their doors if this is a legit issue? They have far less murder as well.
Click to expand...

Private companies were allowed to possess the latest weaponry aboard their ships. The battles of Lexington and Concord occurred because the British were attempting to seize a militia armory. The founders would have probably been more aggressive than we are today when it comes to dealing with mental illness.
 
Jade Dragon said:
Apparently you don't understand anything I'm saying. My standards end outside those discussions. They're there to provide simple discussion with those that can leave the butting heads for outside. Anyone that partakes can post in friendly terms there, and go right outside, and bash heads with idiots, and racists. It's called a reprieve. It's not a reprieve if people bring the outside drama inside. Those discussions have standards, and the rules don't leave there, as I only control my own discussions. In the occasional political discussion, I ban the Toxic ones from making it about them, I ban the stormfront racists, and I ban anyone with a personal vendetta against me. Lately I made a discussion about nicest poster, and people are already ruining it without the thread bans.

P.S. I never said in any thread, and I was at your discussions because you were talking trash, and had been stalking me. If you thought I should take that lying down, you must think I'm a very nice person.
Click to expand...

And your hypocrisy is fully noted. You can troll my nice conversation threads even after I ask you not to, but how dare anyone do that to your threads. And then you blamed me for your actions. Seriously?

Also, you might have some serious Paranoia issues. You come on a public message board, make posts, often insulting people, and when someone replies to your public posts you cry... Stalker.

Perhaps public message boards are too much for you to handle.
 
Yaya said:
Why do you thread ban people in the CE and warzone forums then?

Also, You create flame threads then bam the person you flaming. How does that mesh with your claim it is only for you Jade discussions?
Click to expand...

I told you I always ban certain people. Top, and her two defenders, The stormfront racist swine, and a few that have personal vendettas with me. I'm trying to work things out with you Yaya. If you want another chance at some of those discussions, I can have your name taken off of ban. If you're interested like you were with the peppers, and would like to contribute on friendly terms that's great. And if you believe me or not, I will hold owl's to the same standard, and not let her start trash with you either. That's what my discussions are all about. If it says Jade's on it, you can expect that.
 
Threedee said:
The reason why the right to bear arms is specifically protected, rather than left alone, is the fear of tyranny and government power. Otherwise, it's simply a matter of man's inherent right to self-defense. If it's just a matter of needing guns to defend your life, livelihood, and property, there isn't much fear in having your right to bear arms infringed.

Also, where does the Constitution state that any of its protections are not absolute? Meanwhile, you have famous quotes from men like Franklin about sacrificing liberty for security.
Click to expand...

"specifically protected?" So, freedom of speech isn't specifically protected? Right to assembly? Freedom of religion? And all of those rights have been regulated

And you have absolutely zero proof regarding the "fear of tyranny and Governmemt power," an argument that isn't anymore creditable then the half dozen other narrarives explaining the predatory clause, exact reason no Supreme Court, including the Roberts Court, have ever been able to clarify the clause

And the odds of anyone ever needing a gun to defend themselves are probably higher than winning the mega millions lottery
 
Jade Dragon said:
I told you I always ban certain people. Top, and her two defenders, The stormfront racist swine, and a few that have personal vendettas with me. I'm trying to work things out with you Yaya. If you want another chance at some of those discussions, I can have your name taken off of ban. If you're interested like you were with the peppers, and would like to contribute on friendly terms that's great. And if you believe me or not, I will hold owl's to the same standard, and not let her start trash with you either. That's what my discussions are all about. If it says Jade's on it, you can expect that.
Click to expand...

Dealing with the devil, eh? You can't be bandwagoning because he's on the losing side. :nolovejesus:
:confused:
 
Yaya said:
And your hypocrisy is fully noted. You can troll my nice conversation threads even after I ask you not to, but how dare anyone do that to your threads. And then you blamed me for your actions. Seriously?

Also, you might have some serious Paranoia issues. You come on a public message board, make posts, often insulting people, and when someone replies to your public posts you cry... Stalker.

Perhaps public message boards are too much for you to handle.
Click to expand...

You were talking about me in discussions, and you expect me to be nice? If you want standards in your discussions you actually have to let them be known, and you should practice your standards yourself there. As for asking me not to, you would have had to PM me to give me that info, otherwise I would never know. As for the stalking issue. How is you making around 36 discussions involving me, or including me, not stalking? I counted about 7 I made about you if I recall. It's easy enough to check if you don't believe it.
 
rjhenn said:
The Court doesn't seem to understand "shall not be infringed". It's the only amendment with such absolute terminology. The 1st was written to only apply to Congress. The 2nd was written to apply to all levels of government, and to be absolute.
Click to expand...

Not true, what the Court hasn't been able to do in over two hundred plus years including the Roberts Court is determine what the prefatory clause means, and if one can't do that how can you interpret the second half? Impossible

Example, "my father said if I cleaned the garage, he would give me ten dollars." That doesn't mean my father is giving me ten dollars no more than then the "shall not be infringed" wording applies." It is that simple
 
archives said:
"specifically protected?" So, freedom of speech isn't specifically protected? Right to assembly? Freedom of religion? And all of those rights have been regulated

And you have absolutely zero proof regarding the "fear of tyranny and Governmemt power," an argument that isn't anymore creditable then the half dozen other narrarives explaining the predatory clause, exact reason no Supreme Court, including the Roberts Court, have ever been able to clarify the clause

And the odds of anyone ever needing a gun to defend themselves are probably higher than winning the mega millions lottery
Click to expand...

Are you not physically capable of reading the Federalist Papers, or any other writings produced by the founding generation?

And our track-record on the other protections is pretty sketchy right now. Look no further than the worst SCOTUS ruling of my lifetime, Kelo v New London. Of course, there's always the ridiculous ruling against of the bakery in CO. Really, though, the reason why the founders were so extreme about the right to bear arms is because having any of your other rights trampled by the government can probably be remedied - especially if you have a well-armed population.

Ultimately, though, because the left has become as equally opposed to the right to bear arms, as the founders were in favor, we have abused the 2nd Amendment quite a lot over the past century. Forget trying to ban semiautomatic weapons, I'm sure the founders would rather that modern militias face down tyrants with M-16s than with AR-15s.
 
archives said:
The verb means little, the "right" is not absolute, gun regulation is Constitutionally legal, and to argue it isn't is inane especially considering even a conservative Court emphasized the point

And if you really want to get into semantics, explain decisively what the Founders meant in the prefatory clause because until you can the remainder of the Amendment is irrelevant
Click to expand...
The prefatory clause is merely an absolute phrase that describes the justification for the amendment, It does not limit or restrict in any way the main part of the amendment. In the context of the times, it actually required that all citizens be both armed and familiar with firearms. Our modern failure to maintain that standard is a big contributor to our current misdirected obsession with restricting firearms.
 
Threedee said:
Private companies were allowed to possess the latest weaponry aboard their ships. The battles of Lexington and Concord occurred because the British were attempting to seize a militia armory. The founders would have probably been more aggressive than we are today when it comes to dealing with mental illness.
Click to expand...

Mental illness is the big thing. We definitely need to keep assault weapons out of the mentally ills hands at bare minimum. Even with my experience with my intrusive thought OCD, I have enough to understand they can't handle guns.
 
Jade Dragon said:
I told you I always ban certain people. Top, and her two defenders, The stormfront racist swine, and a few that have personal vendettas with me. I'm trying to work things out with you Yaya. If you want another chance at some of those discussions, I can have your name taken off of ban. If you're interested like you were with the peppers, and would like to contribute on friendly terms that's great. And if you believe me or not, I will hold owl's to the same standard, and not let her start trash with you either. That's what my discussions are all about. If it says Jade's on it, you can expect that.
Click to expand...

So I was right, it isn't just your Jade threads. Yet you claimed it was only those threads and accused me of not paying attention to what you say. That isn't very nice of you.

Why did you troll this thread when that is the very reason you claim to thread ban people from your CE threads? You don't find that hypocritical?

And you completely avoided your war zone threads which have nothing to do with civility. You even make threads about posters and then thread ban them.

So again, it is clear as day your thread bans have zero to do with civility. And you engage in the same behavior you complain about. That isn't very nice of you.
 
archives said:
Not true, what the Court hasn't been able to do in over two hundred plus years including the Roberts Court is determine what the prefatory clause means, and if one can't do that how can you interpret the second half? Impossible

Example, "my father said if I cleaned the garage, he would give me ten dollars." That doesn't mean my father is giving me ten dollars no more than then the "shall not be infringed" wording applies." It is that simple
Click to expand...

Yes they did. In Heller I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top